On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 08:29:34AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > PS It took me a while to figure out where we document pathspec syntax. I > > wonder if a "gitpathspecs" manpage would make sense, like we have > > "gitrevisions". > > Yeah, I came to the same conclusion (should have saved time by > scanning the mailing list before I started writing my response) and > wondered where we wrote it down. The description you found in the > glossary, as far as I recall, is the authoritative one and looks > readable, but I agree it is not as discoverable as it should be. > > A simpler and more readable workaround than ":::file" is "./:file" > by the way ;-) Oh, indeed. That is much less horrible than ":(literal)". :) -Peff
